Judgment :- These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy for Mr. N. Jothi, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the petitioners in both the petitions, and of Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai for M/s. P. Ibrahim Halifulla and K.N. Basha advocates for the respondent in both the petitions, the Court made the following order :- (The order of the Court was made by the Honorable Officiating Chief Justice) Having regard to some factual controversy which had given room for some lengthy arguments in these cases, it is but necessary, though these are interlocutory applications, that we have to set out the facts at some detail as otherwise the core of the matter cannot be appreciated. 2.The respondent herein (M/s. Rashi Leather Private Limited) had filed W.P. No. 4683 of 1984. The prayer in that writ petition was one for amandamusfor the issue of additional licence to the respondent for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Alleging that on certain false representations, the Export House Certificate had been obtained, the said certificate was cancelled by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. This was on 22-9-1984. To quash the order dated 22-9-1984, the respondent had filed W.P. No. 10162 of 1984. It requires to be stated at this stage that the appellants did not choose to file any counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 10162 of 1984. Both the writ petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 4683 and 10162 of 1984 came to be heard together by V. Ramaswami, J. as he then was. The learned Judge allowed the writ petitions by his judgment dated 17-12-1986. A copy of the judgment was obtained by the respondent on 6-1-1987. The result of the judgment is that the respondent would be entitled to additional licence as prayed for in his writ petition formandamus, namely, W.P. No. 4683 of 1984. 3.Several communications were addressed to the appellants for the issuance of additional licence in accordance with the terms of the judgment of the learned single Judge. No doubt, these communications were acknowledged. However, there was no reply whatever. This resulted in the respondent taking out Contempt Application No. 274 of 1987 for disobedience of the order of the learned single Judge. On this contempt application, notice was served on the appellants-petitioners somewhere in 1988. No doubt, these communications were acknowledged. However, there was no reply whatever. This resulted in the respondent taking out Contempt Application No. 274 of 1987 for disobedience of the order of the learned single Judge. On this contempt application, notice was served on the appellants-petitioners somewhere in 1988. On 7-4-1988, additional licence for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 was issued in favour of the respondent. It requires to be stated at this juncture that actually this was not in accordance with the terms of the judgment of the learned single Judge. Therefore, properly speaking, it could not be characterised that the appellants purported to issue the licence. Therefore, in so far as those additional licences were not in conformity with the Import and Export Policy for the relevant years, namely, 1979-80 and 1980-81, on 18-4-1988, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellants to make the necessary modifications in the licences. That letter reads thus: "We are in receipt of your letter No. LR/3335/ADDL. LIC/A.M.80/REP. 1 dated 07-04-1988 along with licences No. P/W 2440956 and P/W 2440957 - a copy of your letter is enclosed for your immediate reference. While you have issued the two additional licences for Export Product Select Products as per Appx. 22 of AM. 80 Import Policy and AM. 81, we are surprised to note that on the 2nd page, (on the reverse) you have pasted certain conditions which are contrary to the order of the High Court of Madras. 1. THIS LICENCE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN FORCE RELATING TO THE GOODS COVERED BY THE LICENCE AS DESCRIBED IN THE RELEVANT IMPORT TRADE CONTROL POLICY BOOK FOR THE YEAR (1978-79) AND (1979-80).The other words do not apply to the licences and should be deleted. 2. THIS LICENCE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CLASS OF IMPORTER CONCERNED AS CONTAINED IN THE RELEVANT EXPORT TRADE CONTROL POLICY BOOK AND THE HAND BOOK OF IMPORT-EXPORT PROCEDURES" * (FOR THE YEAR 1978-79) AND (1979-80). The other sentences should be deleted from the licences. As per the order of the Madras High Court dated 17-12-1986 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami in the writ petition Nos. 4683 and 10162 of 1984, page 13, para 7 reads as follows: "W.P. No. 10162/84 is accordingly allowed and the order of cancellation of the Export House Certificate dated 22-09-1984 is set aside. As per the order of the Madras High Court dated 17-12-1986 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami in the writ petition Nos. 4683 and 10162 of 1984, page 13, para 7 reads as follows: "W.P. No. 10162/84 is accordingly allowed and the order of cancellation of the Export House Certificate dated 22-09-1984 is set aside. There could be no doubt that if the order of cancellation is illegal and would not be accepted, the petitioner is entitled to an additional licence prayed for in W.P. No. 4683/84. Accordingly, W.P. No. 4683 is also allowed as prayed for." * It is therefore clear that the Additional Licences should be issued, as per the policy in existence for the year 1978-79 value Rs. 28, 27, 770/- and for the year 1979-80 value Rs. 24, 15, 305/-. Hence, the words containing after Import Trade Control Policy Book should be deleted from the Licences. "We request you to kindly send a separate letter stating that these words have been deleted and that they do not apply to the Licences No. 2440956 and 2440957. We request you to take immediate action and send us the amendment to enable us to go ahead with the Import of the items. Thanking you," * On receipt of this, a reply emanated from the appellants-petitioners to the following effect on 13-6-1988: Sirs, Sub : Export House - Issue of Additional licences AM 80 and AM 81 periods - regarding.Please refer to your letter dated 18-4-1988 on the above subject. You are requested to forward the following additional licences (both Customs purposes and Exchange Control purposes copies of licences) to this office immediately for necessary further action. 1. Addl. Licence No. P/W/2440956 dated 7-4-88 Rs. 28, 27, 770/- 2. Addl. Licence No. P/W/2440957 dated 7-4-88 Rs. 24, 15, 305/- Yours faithfully, 4.In compliance with this request, on 24-6-1988 the respondent returned the licences. However, without making any alterations as prayed for by the respondent, these licences were returned to the respondent on 22-7-1988. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent took out Contempt Application No. 274 of 1987 with a prayer to make the necessary modification in the additional licences and also for the re-issue of the same. The matter came up before the then learned Officiating Chief Justice Mr. S. Ratnavel Pandian. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent took out Contempt Application No. 274 of 1987 with a prayer to make the necessary modification in the additional licences and also for the re-issue of the same. The matter came up before the then learned Officiating Chief Justice Mr. S. Ratnavel Pandian. The learned Officiating Chief Justice passed the following order : This contempt application is filed by Messrs Rashi Leather (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director A.A. Rasheed on the ground that the order passed by V. Ramaswami, J., (as he then was) dated 17-12-1986 in W.P. Nos. 4683 and 10162 of 1984 has not been complied with. Now it is admitted that the licences have been issued on 7-4-1988 for the licensing period from April, 1979 to March, 1980 and from April, 1980 to March, 1981. Mr. K.N. Basha, learned counsel for the applicant states that certain modifications have to be made in the two import trade control additional licences. The modifications relate to description of goods under column 3. The licence for the period 1979-80 at present reads as "as per para 174/1 of Chapter 18 of Import Policy for April-March, 1979-80'. Mr. Basha wants the sub-paragraph (1) of para 174 to be deleted so that it covers the entire paragraph 174. So also the licence for the period 1980-81 at present reads as" * as per 177/1 of Chapter 18 of April-March, 1981 Import Policy'. Mr. Basha wants the sub-paragraph (1) of para 177 to be deleted so that it could cover the entire paragraph 177. "Yet another grievance of Mr. Basha relates to the words that occur in conditions 1 to 3 of both the licences which read" * thereof made up to and including the date of issue of the licence.' The learned counsel wants the above words in the conditions 1 to 3 to be deleted and it should read as 'as stood for the policy year 1979-80' as far as the additional licence for the policy year 1979-80 is concerned and as far as 1980-81 is concerned also it should read as 'as stood for the policy year 1980-81'. The respondents could have no valid objections for the modifications sought for by the learned counsel for the applicant. The respondents could have no valid objections for the modifications sought for by the learned counsel for the applicant. Hence the additional licences will be re-issued to the applicant in terms of the modifications indicated above within four weeks from the date of surrender of the present licences to the respondents. The contempt proceedings are dropped.'... 5.Pursuant to this order, in the hope of getting the alterations as directed, the respondent on 29-8-1988 returned the licence for the purpose of re-issue. Four weeks' time reckoned from the date of issue of the order expired on 25-9-1988. Finding that the order could not be complied with, the appellants-petitioners took out a sub-application in Contempt Application No. 274 of 1987 on 25-9-1988.Inter aliait was stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in the sub-application in Contempt Application No. 274 of 1987 as follows: "...This Honorable Court ordered that the directions indicated in the order has to be carried out within four weeks from the date of surrender of the present licence of the respondent. The respondent herein surrendered the said licence on 29-8-1988. As per the routine procedure the matter has been sent to Delhi by exercising enough care in the matter. The administrative process has to be made and the time is fast approaching. Under these circumstances this application is taken out on behalf of the petitioners to extend the time limit granted in the order dated 19-8-1988. The respondent has given already a reminder and it is expected if the amendment is not carried out as per the time schedule the respondent is likely to file yet another contempt application. Hence this application is taken out for the extension of time. This Honorable Court may be pleased to consider the administrative factors and the reciprocal arrangements to be made at Delhi in the context.'....On the strength of this, the learned Officiating Chief Justice granted four weeks' further time on 3-10-1988. 6.Having regard to the above, the only and proper course left to the appellants-petitioners was to comply with the order of the court, but for reasons best known to them, this was not done. 7.Be that so, the appellants-petitioners took out an application on 3-10-1988 for the condonation of inordinate delay in filing the writ appeals. 6.Having regard to the above, the only and proper course left to the appellants-petitioners was to comply with the order of the court, but for reasons best known to them, this was not done. 7.Be that so, the appellants-petitioners took out an application on 3-10-1988 for the condonation of inordinate delay in filing the writ appeals. While that was pending consideration, the respondent having entertained hope against hope and ultimately finding that all his attempts to get the additional licence were frustrated, moved the Supreme Court in W.P. No. 117 of 1989 to direct the petitioners-appellants to issue additional licences as per the orders of this court. The Supreme Court passed the following order on 8-2-1989." * ...If the order of the High Court has not been obeyed, it is open to the petitioner to approach the High Court for enforcing its orders. If the High Court declines to enforce its order, it is permissible to the petitioner to approach this court by filing a special leave petition. In the circumstances, the writ petition under Art. 32 is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to move the High Court.".... Therefore, the respondent was obliged to file a second contempt application No. 83 of 1989. That was admitted by one of us on 24-2-1989 and notice has been ordered to the petitioners-appellants returnable by 7-3-1989. It is under these circumstances, the appeals as well as the applications for stay have come up before us. 8.Having regard to the controversy, we are inclined to admit the appeals and they are accordingly admitted. 9.However, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners strongly pleads for grant of stay stating that but for grant of stay, the entire appeals would become infructuous. He would add that should this court be pleased to admit the appeals, a short stay might be granted and the appeals themselves may be taken up for final disposal any time. Though this request appears to be innocuous and there should be no difficulty in granting the same, justifiably based on the facts and circumstances which we have set out at some length Mr. Though this request appears to be innocuous and there should be no difficulty in granting the same, justifiably based on the facts and circumstances which we have set out at some length Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would emphatically submit that having regard to the conduct of the appellants, they have disentitled themselves to the grant of stay; further there is a contempt application pending and unless and until they are purged out of the contempt, the appeals themselves could not be entertained, much less the grant of stay would arise. 10.For the present, we would leave out the question as to what exactly is the effect of pending contempt proceedings against the petitioners-appellants. But our endeavor to trace these facts is only for the purpose of finding out whether the petitioners-appellants have at least made a genuine attempt to comply with the order of V. Ramaswami, J., as he then was. We are afraid, not. First and foremost, when the appellants lost in the writ petitions and several letters were written praying for compliance of the judgment of V. Ramaswami, J., nothing whatever was done till 7-4-1988. Therefore, for a period of more than one year and five months, the matter was kept in cold storage and it was on 7-4-1988, additional licences for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 were PURPORTED TO BE ISSUED (emphasis applied). We have to characterise it to be so because nothing would have been more graceful on the part .of the petitioners-appellants than to issue the licence in accordance with the terms of judgment of V. Ramaswami, J., as he then was. That was not done. However, an argument is put forth saying that because every year there is a change of Import and Export Policy, the licence could be issued in accordance with the year of issue and not the year in quest in the writ petitions. That might be the law; but what prevented the petitioners-appellants from mentioning before the learned single Judge that they were armed with that law and obtaining such liberty? Why were the appellants blissfully ignorant before the learned single Judge and how did the appellants expect the respondent to draw the canon so to say that he should accept the licence as per the policy of the year of issue? Nothing of this kind was done. Why were the appellants blissfully ignorant before the learned single Judge and how did the appellants expect the respondent to draw the canon so to say that he should accept the licence as per the policy of the year of issue? Nothing of this kind was done. They simply keep quiet both at the time when the judgment was delivered against them but even later when repeated contempt applications were taken out. 11.We have searched in vain the order of the then learned Officiating Chief Justice Mr. S. Ratnavel Pandian, dated 19-8-1988. Even there, no reservation was asked for, as is urged, armed with the law. Then again in paragraph 3 of the sub-application in C.A. No. 274 of 1987 which we have quotedin extenso, no such reservation was asked for. Now to say for the reason that the licence was issued as per the policy of the year of issue and not the year of dispute, appears to us as though a drowning man seeking to clutch at the straw or to wriggle out of the situation brought about by the lack of diligence at every stage in the contempt matters. Why we say that there was lack of diligence is that apart from not filing a counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 10162 of 1984, there was no such reservation asked for before the learned single Judge. 12.Even after the order of the learned Officiating Chief Justice granting four more weeks' further time, not a little finger was raised. Therefore, we find that there was total lack ofBONA FIDES.To say the least, somehow the respondent had been deprived of its hard-earned fruits of judgment of V. Ramaswami, J., which had stood the test of time, repeatedly approved and approbated both in the order made in the contempt applications as well as in the order of the Lordships of the Supreme Court. For these reasons, these are matters in which there cannot be any stay as that would put a premium on lack of diligence and lack of BONA FIDESon the part of the appellants-petitioners. 13.The stay petitions, namely, C.M.P. Nos. 972 and 973 of 1989 are, therefore, dismissed.